Deeplinks Blog posts about Patents

Earlier this week, we announced that an Atlanta-based patent attorney, Scott A. Horstemeyer, had sued EFF for defamation. Horstemeyer alleged that he was defamed by the April Stupid Patent of the Month blog post. We explained that there were no false facts in the post to retract or correct, and the opinions we expressed are founded on the undisputed facts and are fully protected by the Constitution.

On May 26, 2015, Atlanta-based attorney Scott A. Horstemeyer sued the Electronic Frontier Foundation alleging that he was defamed by the April Stupid Patent of the Month blog post. Horstemeyer has demanded that EFF remove the post and publish an editorial repudiating it. EFF has declined this request and stands by the opinions expressed in the post.

We are very disappointed that an attorney would attempt to silence criticism with misguided and counterproductive litigation, and will defend against this lawsuit vigorously. As our counsel at the law firm of Bryan Cave have explained to Horstemeyer, there were no false facts in the post to retract or correct, and the opinions expressed are protected by the Constitution.

Today, the Supreme Court decided Commil v. Cisco, a patent case that asked whether having a “good-faith belief” that a patent is invalid means that someone can’t induce infringement of a patent.

As we previously noted, this is a complex area of patent law. Generally, the law is that someone “induces” infringement if they encourage someone else to perform the patented act or make the patented product, with full knowledge of the patent and with intent to infringe the patent. So the question: does someone have intent to induce infringement if they have a good-faith belief that the patent is invalid?

This week, together with Public Knowledge and Engine, EFF submitted written comments to the Patent Office regarding its Patent Quality Initiative. We urge the Patent Office to ensure that this program actually reduces the number of invalid patents being issued. Its quality efforts should serve the public interest, not the special interests of patent applicants.